Do you get déjà vu? The PLS sues NAR — again

If you are familiar with ThePLS.com’s original antitrust suit filed in 2020 against the National Association of Realtors over NAR’s Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP), reading the new suit filed Tuesday might give you déjà vu. 

In its 31-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, the PLS notes that “Paragraphs 1-121 of this Complaint are substantively identical to the Amended Complaint filed by PLS in July 2020.” 

The main difference between the complaints is that the three named MLS defendants in the 2020 suit — California Regional MLS (CRMLS), Bright MLS and Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) — are now named as co-conspirators. The MLSs were dismissed from the initial suit with prejudice in January 2024.

NAR was also dismissed from the initial suit at that time, but without prejudice, meaning that the PLS was allowed to refile the suit.

At the same time as the dismissals, NAR and the PLS entered into a tolling agreement and stipulation. This tolled any applicable statutes of limitations for PLS’s claims against NAR from May 28, 2020, through the termination of the agreement and stipulation, which was set for Dec. 31, 2024.

This agreement was amended in March 2025, revising the statutes of limitations from May 28, 2020, until June 30, 2025.

“NAR and PLS were in discussions to extend this agreement until PLS ceased to engage. Last night, PLS refiled its suit,” a NAR spokesperson wrote in an email. “NAR will respond directly to the plaintiff’s claims in court. The Clear Cooperation Policy promotes transparency and competition in the real estate marketplace while still providing home sellers and their agents the option to list their property as an office exclusive.”

MRED and CRMLS did not respond to HousingWire‘s requests for comments. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Bright MLS wrote that it was previously dismissed from the original suit with prejudice and that the company had no further comments. 

Digging into the allegations

According to the antitrust suit, NAR is “a combination or conspiracy among its members, who are licensed real estate professionals who compete with one another.”

The PLS alleges that the adoption and enforcement of CCP by NAR and Realtor-affiliated MLSs is “the product of agreements and concerted action among the MLS Conspirators and between and among each NAR-affiliated MLS and their members.”

By requiring all listings to be submitted to the MLS, the PLS claims that CCP “eliminates the ability of listing networks that compete with the NAR-affiliated MLSs to feature listings that are not on the NAR-affiliated MLSs.”

The plaintiff argues this “degrades the quality of competing listing networks, reduces the incentives of licensed real estate professionals to use those competing listing networks, and makes those competing listing networks less effective competitors to the NAR-affiliated MLSs.” 

Additionally, the suit claims that CCP “has had actual and substantial anticompetitive effects by eliminating the ability and incentive of licensed real estate professionals to market pocket listings through PLS,” as well as other listing networks, thereby harming competition among listing network services.

The PLS claims that the policy has harmed consumers by “eliminating from the market a form of real estate brokerage services desired by consumers.” 

The PLS also believes that NAR restrained trade by impeding the ability of an agent to offer pocket listing services, and that the PLS was harmed as a result of the passage and enforcement of CCP.

“Listings were removed from PLS and submitted instead to NAR-affiliated MLSs,” the complaint states. “Agent participation in PLS declined. PLS’s access to capital was constrained. PLS was foreclosed from the commercial opportunities necessary to innovate and grow.”

Conspiracy theory claims

The suit claims that NAR violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act. This section of the act bans conspiracies and collusion. Under this, a plaintiff must show that an implicit or explicit agreement between competitors caused an unreasonable restraint of trade. 

While NAR is the current suit’s sole defendant, the PLS claims that NAR itself is a “conspiracy among its members.” It argues that the rules the trade group promulgates and enforces, such as CCP, are examples of agreements between these members. 

The complaint goes further in citing a white paper co-signed by Bright MLS, MRED and CRMLS in September 2019. This document called for “collective action to address the threat to the MLS system presented by the rise of pocket listings and the prospect of a competing listing network that would aggregate such listings,” and it is mentioned as further evidence of an alleged conspiracy. 

According to the PLS, in 2019, it had nearly 20,000 members nationwide and was on its way to become a legitimate competitor to MLSs. 

In October 2019, a month after the white paper was published, Bright MLS adopted its own version of CCP. A few days later, the complaint claims that the three MLSs and other “MLS Conspirators” met at the Council of Multiple Listing Services (CMLS) conference “to discuss the competitive threat presented by pocket listings and the need for NAR to take action at the upcoming NAR Convention to eliminate that threat through adoption of the Clear Cooperation Policy.”

During a session at the CMLS conference, the CEO of MRED addressed the audience and “explained that the Clear Cooperation Policy was motivated by concerns that pocket listings were ‘making the MLS less valuable,’” according to the suit. 

The complaint alleges that similar claims were made by the chairman of Bright MLS later that day.

“’Now, the people who want to do pocket listings? They’re a little pissed. They’ll get over it. We need to not worry about it. Because that’s bad for our industry, right?” the complaint alleges the Bright MLS chairman said at the CMLS conference.

“‘… So what do we need to do? We need to go back and talk to your Boards of Directors, talk to your big brokers, and make sure that they understand we’re talking pocket listings and not everything else and make sure that they understand. … And then you need to come to that MLS forum, and you need to line up at the microphone and say ‘Bright MLS, we’re all in.’”

A month after the CMLS conference, CCP was adopted by NAR during its annual conference. 

“At this meeting, elimination of competition to NAR-affiliated MLSs from networks aggregating pocket listings was cited as a reason for passage of the Clear Cooperation Policy,” the complaint states. “NAR adopted the Clear Cooperation Policy over the complaints of some NAR members, who informed NAR that the policy was anticompetitive and likely illegal.”

Prior to the adoption of the policy, the PLS claims that “NAR-affiliated MLSs had generally allowed members to withhold listings from the MLS if the seller of the property so desired.”

“The Clear Cooperation Policy eliminates this possibility, and in that way renders the provision of residential real estate brokerage services unresponsive to consumer demand,” the complaint states.

MLSs enforce the policy by fining agents for non-compliant listings. According to the complaint, one MLS in South Florida has a maximum penalty of $15,000 for a CCP violation. Additionally, violators may also be suspended from the MLS or have their access terminated. 

“The penalties imposed by the NAR-affiliated MLSs for violations of the Clear Cooperation Policy are intended to, and in fact do, make violations of the Clear Cooperation Policy cost prohibitive for NAR members, and are a constructive refusal to offer MLS services to NAR members that violate the Clear Cooperation Policy,” the complaint states. 

Other CCP litigation

The PLS is not the only entity to take issue with NAR’s CCP policy.

Top Agent Network (TAN) also filed an antitrust suit against NAR over the policy in May 2020. TAN renewed its legal efforts in October 2024 after the suit was dismissed by a judge in 2021. TAN and NAR agreed to dismiss the suit in January 2025.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has also previously taken issue with the policy, including it in a 2020 civil investigative demand along with the now defunct Participation Rule.

In March 2025, the DOJ clarified in the footnote of an amicus filing in the Nosalek commission lawsuit that it “has not taken a position that such policies [CCP] standing alone (i.e., without mandated MLS publication of offers of compensation or exceptions benefitting primarily large brokerages) are anticompetitive.”